|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I am not sure what you refer to here. The Dark Ages were not a time of monolithic beliefs. That is an incorrect suggestion often erroneously passed on. Indeed, I never suggested it was. What I refer to is that, whilst definitions of God varied, and wars, crusades and Inquisitions were fought over such definitions...childeren were taught that God was real, they went to church, they feared God. Everything they did was in some way connected to God. There was the same kind of indoctrination that iano seems to indicate that is happening with evolution.
They sprang up, not just to deal with a few agnostic-type heretics or Jews or others of non-Christian religions, but due to certain sects of Christianity being so numerous and populous that they threatened the influence of the Pope since these Christians rejected much of Catholicism. Indeed, and the Holy Roman Empire in the late 12th and early 13th Centuries is an excellent example of this. Philip of Swabia and the papists like Otto causing no end of consternation. However, they both viewed the conflict with God-tinted spectacles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
Or the 13 year old has only been taught that man came from ape, he needn't have been indoctrinated!
/Soren This message has been edited by kongstad, 02-Aug-2005 03:57 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
iano
Commonality between two species does not infer common descent except if such relationship is assumed. You could equally assume that a Creator used similar componants in a wide variety of the mechanical aspects of his creation. Ok then let us go a further step.Why is the cowpox not deadly to humans if the same mechanism is in place?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
A 13 year old is asked: "did man come from apes?" and replies "Yes he did - I saw it on tv last week". This data needs explaining - the kid hasn't got a Ph.D. EI is the hypothesis which best explain the data - so gets accepted until shown otherwise. This exactly the same sort of tired tripe you just tried to pretend was some form of evidence. It's easy, look I'll do one. A 13 year old is asked: "did man come from apes?" and replies "No he didn't, God made him, I heard it in Sunday school". Or how about... A 13 year old is asked: "did man come from apes?" and replies "No, my older brother Tom told me we were all made of stars, Of course he was high at the time". Look into bayesian analysis, it is similar to the sort of evaluations we all make all the time when we give something a certain amount of credibility based upon how well it agrees with everything else we know and how much we trust the source of the information. I sincerely doubt that you could find one 13 year old in the USA or the UK who has never been exposed, through any medium, to a non-evolutionary explanation of the origin of man. This all goes into the mix when new ideas are evaluated or old ones re-evaluated, it is a largely unconscious calculus of confidence. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Think you're mixing your metaphors. The Dark Ages are different times tha the time of God-at-the-centre of the Universe science. Never stated otherwise.
Newton "the father of science" et al lived in the latter. Indeed , and when was this? Newton was 17th Century, but let us not forget Copernicus and Galileo, 15 and 16th Century. That is to say, right on the edge of the Dark Ages, the Rennaissance. These people emerged from such a time with ideas almost unthinkable by the people before them. Still heavily coloured by their God-specs and heavily influenced by the threat of the Spanish Inquisition. By the time Newton came along, even those tinted spectacles were beginning to clear...indeed it was the start of the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason. So even a millenium of indoctrination is not impervious...evolution has no such depth, it has no 'police' burning 'heretical' works, torturing creationists etc. So, if da Vinci, Galilieo, Brahe and Copernicus can emerge from such indoctrination, then either evolution indoctrination is stronger and a massive problem we should try and solve, or its not that big of a problem, and if evolution is not true, it might set science back a few decades.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
A 13 year old is asked: "did man come from apes?" and replies "Yes he did - I saw it on tv last week". This data needs explaining - the kid hasn't got a Ph.D. EI is the hypothesis which best explain the data - so gets accepted until shown otherwise. I still think you have it completely opposite of the actual reality of the situation.In my experience, the vast majority of 13 year olds would say "No! God made man the way he is" or "Get a life you old duffer! I ain't descended from no ape!" My son is actually a 13 year old right now and he is about the only kid in his class who actually gives the TOE a second thought. The others are all regular church goers who are taught repeatedly that the TOE is a scientific conspiracy (pretty much as you are suggesting). Many of them make active attempts to get him to renounce the TOE on a regular basis. I know this is a logical exercise to you but unless you can show (with evidence) that there is any kind of EI actually in existence then the rest of the debate is pretty much pointless.From what I can see it simply doesn't exist and in the vast majority of cases the exact opposite is true. Anti-EI appears to be the norm which scientifically minded kids have to break away from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
DominionSeraph writes: If it does pertain to the ToE on some level, but is inconsistent with it; then, according to EI, it must be rejected so that such invalidating data doesn't enter the pool. Good illustration but not at all the only option. There are a couple of other logical (and practical) options. According to the EI, it may cause some folk to say to themselves "it doesn't fit - but it MUST fit. We KNOW Mother Theory MUST the correct general path (for reasons perhaps as that quoted by Sir Keith below). We're operating at Daughter level so can we think of a Daughter theory that will make it fit in the family and call it "Directed Panmongery" A tad flippant but this kind of thing has gone on in the past. As I understand it, "Hopeful monster" and "Directed panspermia" theories didn't get much of a look in, but they were still suggested - in the latter case, by respected scientists, as a way around problems raised by the data ( of which more later) Assuming abiogensis (which comes under the umbrella of Evolution) is still the mechanism whereby life is supposed to have originated, then a 'Rust Theory' may involve spending years experimenting to spontaneously manufacture rust out of bits of stainless steel scrap lying around the yard. "We may not be getting anywhere but we are working on it". My last quip may be incorrect. Maybe scientists have managed to spontaneously and undirectedly manufacture a self-replicating piece of RNA (which I believe is the most base thing you need to start mutation on which survival of the fittest can operate - as opposed to speculate as to how bits of amino acids and proteins MAY somehow have got it together. I haven't seen the headline myself so I'm not sure. Which raises the point. Evolution is a theory. That means it's tentative. Only when it can account for all the data/observations will it be fact. This may be 'standard science' or it may be a way of getting around the problem of not being able to make the data fit the theory, ie: sweeping problems under the theoretical carpet as it were. Evolution would support the former view, EI the latter. Back to the theses...post 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
What took you PY? We could do with your calming influence here. Tell me this, what's the 'AM' graphic which accompanies the title of a thread in the Is It Science main page. It wouldn't stand for "Anger Meter" by any chance? There's been a bit of it about allright (though I'm as pure as snow on that one... as you might well guess!)
Read an post responding to Wounded King a few post ago. Practical example of which you have at your disposal (the single boy in your sons class). Next time your dropping off your son, ask him why he believes it. If he can't hold up a Ph.D (this is others people criteria note, me, I don't hold that a Ph.D is a valid qualification against EI...but we ain't got that far) then he's been EI'd into believing it by the MI listed on post 1 this thread. There are no other options for the boys stance. EI exists That others don't believe because they, for example, have been indoctrinated by something else is irrelevant. The title of this thread has only to do with those who DO believe the theory, not those who don't. As a general comment to all: Richard Dawkins, in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, made the point that an "Argument From Incredulity", is not an argument at all. I'm inclined to agree. That someone "cannot believe" or "finds it hard to imagine" or "do you really expect me to accept that"....is neither here nor there. Nor is it particularily scientific... Theses 1,2,3,4....anybody? This message has been edited by iano, 02-Aug-2005 03:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Read an post responding to Wounded King a few post ago. Practical example of which you have at your disposal (the single boy in your sons class). Next time your dropping off your son, ask him why he believes it. If he can't hold up a Ph.D (this is others people criteria note, me, I don't hold that a Ph.D is a valid qualification against EI...but we ain't got that far) then he's been EI'd into believing it by the MI listed on post 1 this thread. There are no other options for the boys stance. EI exists Can I have some of whatever you are smoking? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Iano
Just so I do not get missed in the reply deluge you receive could you take time to respond to message 213 so we can continue.We also may end up better off breaking into separate thread since the limit on posts here is around # 300 due to problems that result from the software I believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
wounded king writes: I sincerely doubt that you could find one 13 year old in the USA or the UK who has never been exposed, through any medium, to a non-evolutionary explanation of the origin of man. This all goes into the mix when new ideas are evaluated or old ones re-evaluated, it is a largely unconscious calculus of confidence On what basis does someone who can't evaluate evolution to be true for themselves state that they believe it? Calculus of confidence in what? What they've been told by others who they trust?. Faith? In what? What they've been told by others whom they trust. Wriggle around all you want WK. You will not escape the conclusion. EI. "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable" Sir Arthur Keith, Anthropologist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Wounded King writes: Can I have some of whatever you are smoking? Just read Sidelines message and was reminded me of his method of presenting a point so I'll temper my response... Is that the extent of your arguement WK?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
No, but since I prefer arguing based upon actual evidence rather than made up anecdotal evidence I fear that we aren't headed for a productive debate.
Why should PY wait before asking his own son a question? Will his son be in a particularly indoctrinated state when he is being dropped off at school? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
iano you seem to be ignoring the definition of indoctrination you yourself supplied. If a 13 year old has been exposed to creationism in different guises, aand to different accounts of evolution, which I can hardly believe you would deny, then how has he been indoctrinated into evolution?
Indoctrination by your own definition is a process to make a person uncritically believe a given idea. So if a person has been exposed to different views on a subject, the onus must be on YOU to show he has been indoctrinated. /Soren
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
sidelined writes: Ok then let us go a further step.Why is the cowpox not deadly to humans if the same mechanism is in place? For the same reason that the 40m long, 17mm bolt from the space shuttle, when used instead of a 30mm long 17mm bolt in a motorcycle engine, would protrude too far into the crankcase of the motorcycle engine and cause the engine to lock up... Not the same mechanism, it's similar mechanisms, adapted by a theoretical Creator to suit the function he was after (much like Evolution says it is) Like, I'm sure a mouses lungs work something like mine but I wouldn't like to embark on a serious session of love-making using mouse-sized lungs... He said lighting another cigarette...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024